119 One-Liners to Respond to Climate Science Myths

Over 100 one-liners for arguing with a climate “skeptic” or climate disinformer, with links to the science behind them.

Climate science expert, physicist, and highly respected blogger John Cook of SkepticalScience.com spends much of his time creating long, detailed, scientific rebuttals to climate change disinformers.

For detailed debunkings of hundreds of climate change disinformer myths, you can surf his website for hours. But for all of us who do not spend so much time debating with disinformers and do not have such deep knowledge of climate science, or who just need a short (science-backed) one-liner time and again to refute a climate science myth, one of his readers — Dr. Jan Dash, an ex-theoretical physicist and Director of the Climate Initiative of the Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office — helped him to create a list of 119 one-liners to use in such circumstances, with links to more detailed, scientific arguments.

Update January 5, 2012: the list has grown to over 150 now, all provided below or in app form via those same links above.

By the way, you can also get these on the skeptical science apps for the iPhone, Android, or Nokia.

You can read all about the history of this project on SkepticalScience but without further delay, here are the one-liners courtesy of John and Jan (first is the disinformer statement, then the one-line response with a link to more):

Past history shows that when CO2 rises quickly, there was mass extinctions of coral reefs.

Past history shows that when CO2 rose sharply, this corresponded with mass extinctions of coral reefs. Currently, CO2 levels are rising faster than any other time in known history. The change in seawater pH over the 21st Century is projected to be faster than anytime over the last 800,000 years and will create conditions not seen on Earth for at least 40 million years.

Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and amplifies any warming caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. This positive feedback is why climate is so sensitive to CO2 warming.

There are many lines of evidence indicating global warming is unequivocal.

There are many lines of independent empirical evidence for global warming, from accelerated ice loss from the Arctic to Antarctica to the poleward migration of plant and animal species across the globe.

The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over.

Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per day, and a GDP reduction of less than 1%.

Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant

While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment.

44

“We’re coming out of the Little Ice Age”

Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming

The main driver of the warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was the warming sun with a small contribution from volcanic activity. However, solar activity leveled off after 1940 and the net influence from sun and volcano since 1940 has been slight cooling. Greenhouse gases have been the main contributor of warming since 1970.

The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it’s important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. But the central message of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance, providing drinking water to half a billion people. Satellites and on-site measurements are observing that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing at an accelerating rate.

Arctic sea ice has shrunk by an area equal to Western Australia, and summer or multi-year sea ice might be all gone within a decade.

Ice mass loss is occuring at an accelerated rate in Greenland, Antarctica and globally from inland glaciers. Arctic sea ice is also falling at an accelerated rate. The exception to this ice loss is Antarctic sea ice which has been growing despite the warming Southern Ocean. This is due to local factors unique to the area.

A number of renewable sources already do provide baseload power, and we don’t need renewables to provide a large percentage of baseload power immediately.

Although renewable energy does not necessarily need to provide baseload power in the short-term, there are several ways in which it can do so. For example, geothermal energy is available at all times, concentrated solar thermal energy has storage capability, and wind energy can be stored in compressed air.

CO2 and corresponding water vapor feedback are the biggest cause of global warming.

The Nature commentary by Penner et al. on which this argument is based actually says that on top of the global warming caused by carbon dioxide, other short-lived pollutants (such as methane and black carbon) cause an additional warming approximately 65% as much as CO2, and other short-lived pollutants (such as aerosols) also cause some cooling. However, claiming that CO2 has only caused 35% of global warming is a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the paper.

About the Author

Zachary Shahan is the director of CleanTechnica, the most popular cleantech-focused website in the world, and Planetsave, a world-leading green and science news site. He has been covering green news of various sorts since 2008, and he has been especially focused on solar energy, electric vehicles, and wind energy since 2009.
Aside from his work on CleanTechnica and Planetsave, he's the founder and director of Solar Love, EV Obsession, and Bikocity.
To connect with Zach on some of your favorite social networks, go to ZacharyShahan.com and click on the relevant buttons.

Zachary, you did an excellent job of posting this in a clear format with all the links. I would like to apologize for the ingrates and ignoramuses who have already commented here. (“How about some links?” How about you read the intro … the links are embedded. “How about the other side of the ‘argument’?” These are responses to climate science *myths* — so the other side of the “argument” is actually already presented here. “83 and 131 contradict each other.” 83 and 131 are talking about two different aspects of snow (snowfall and snow cover). “One-liners prove it’s not science.” I suppose that proves that two-liners aren’t comedy. “Man can’t control nature.” Oh, so you’re blaming women for all this? Good grief.

I’m a teacher, and I have to admit that the education system is partly to blame for the huge number of scientific illiterates this generation has produced. We don’t do a good job of teaching the carbon cycle(s) or the physics of the “greenhouse” effect in school.

The commenters here have proven, once again, that “the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” It’s been so tiring having to make sure that every single little “i” is dotted (the by-buy typo is in your response to Sud1) so that deniers/skeptics/ignorers/delayers don’t jump on us. Anyway, good on you for posting it here.

Trust

I agree with Sud1. Why would “science” need talking points? All I see is anecdotal assertions without actual facts to back them up. People want to create multi trillions in new taxes. If this was all about science, we wouldn’t have politicians in the middle of all of this. Since the politicians can’t control our border or deal with global world order, the egotistical belief that we (man) can control nature is pure folly.

Skycap

This is an informative website. I would love to see it include both sides of the global warming argument. There has been misleading information from both camps. I’m not saying it’s equal but why not list everything? It would really help in believability and maybe show naysayers you have no agenda.

http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

There’s not an agenda. It’s science. Why would someone equally present arguments saying that the Earth is revolving around the Sun and the Sun is revolving around the Earth?

Pushtan Niegro

In the context of purchasing something, as an educated person is aware, the term is spelled “buy.” In any case, the one-liners do give one thing away: the claim about 1998 data is a fairly basic problem without an especially good answer yet. When we have to use one-liners to try to explain away hard data as not meaningful, particularly hard data that nearly everything in the theory (especially the promised horrific effects) rests upon, we have some time to take and work to do before we’re entirely immune from the “religion” claims.

http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

The one-liners are for people’s short attention spans. Each of them leads to longer articles and academic research. (Something that is pretty clear, but again, short attention spans….)

http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

Not sure where you see “buy” missing or some related typo.

Pushtan Niegro

In the context of purchasing something, as an educated person is aware, the term is spelled “buy.” In any case, the one-liners do give one thing away: the claim about 1998 data is a fairly basic problem without an especially good answer yet. When we have to use one-liners to try to explain away hard data as not meaningful, particularly hard data that nearly everything in the theory (especially the promised horrific effects) rests upon, we have some time to take and work to do before we’re entirely immune from the “religion” claims.

http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

The one-liners are for people’s short attention spans. Each of them leads to longer articles and academic research. (Something that is pretty clear, but again, short attention spans….)

http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

Not sure where you see “buy” missing or some related typo.

Tom Moran

83 and 131 contradict each other?

Tom Moran

83 and 131 contradict each other?

Debunker

The headline is misleading, I thought this was for the purpose of combating all this warming nonsense. Turns out it is a propaganda page to help perpetuate the myth :- (

Alan Dallas

To postulate Man can have an impact on the Global Weather system is presumptuous, pompous, and self centered. Not to mention the ‘Science’ is pseudo science at best. It’s all postulation.

Honestly, I don’t give a shit. No of us will be alive in another 1000 years to see if the predictions will be correct.

sk8sonh2o

Can we get better $ cost estimate info for #39

sk8sonh2o

Can we get better $ cost estimate info for #39

http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

the intermediate versions of the responses (linked) do have journal articles included.

Bruce Morgan Williams

What would make this a really powerful, useful web page is if you had links to original sources, peer reviewed published papers, etc. You could crowdsource it and just verify them yourself.

http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

the intermediate versions of the responses (linked) do have journal articles included.

Bruce Morgan Williams

“Well I
think that we’re headed for a whole lotta trouble…..”
-Van Halen, early warming warners.

Sud1

How about any field of science that needs 150 one liners to defend itself isn’t science; its a religion

http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

Wow, that’s an inane comment.

Clearly, when a multi-trillion industry is threatened by scientific findings, it does what it can to confuse the public and prevent action. Thus, more work is needed to show what the science says.

It’s really not complicated, or at all what you make it out to be.

But thanks for your concern, and have a nice day. (And don’t by the bull the coal & oil industry have fed you.)

walleyekiller

the word is buy imbecile, with a U.

Sud1

How about any field of science that needs 150 one liners to defend itself isn’t science; its a religion

http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

Wow, that’s an inane comment.

Clearly, when a multi-trillion industry is threatened by scientific findings, it does what it can to confuse the public and prevent action. Thus, more work is needed to show what the science says.

It’s really not complicated, or at all what you make it out to be.

But thanks for your concern, and have a nice day. (And don’t by the bull the coal & oil industry have fed you.)

One I hear a lot: There was farming in Greenland during the medieval warm period. Right, but there is farming of the same kind–sheep grazing–in the area of the Norse Eastern Settlement today. In the Norse Western Settlement farming was marginal and resulted in large-scale erosion. Yet there are gardens around Nuuk, which is nearby, and if more summers go like the last few, who knows what they’ll grow?

Another: Grapevines grew in medieval southern England. And they do today–even farther north. The varieties grown matter, but old European varieties of Vitis vinifera are grown into the Midlands, and some early hybrids are in commercial plantings as far north as Lancashire and Yorkshire and on a small scale in Scotland.

GilaGila

The denier who used #1 is disputing the impact of climate change, not its reality. The correct response is “yeah, climate changed in the past.. look at all the mass extinctions it caused!”.

Will W

I really liked these talking points; and feel they would be good to use. I think people who really deny climate warming these days can’t be convinced by any amount of facts; but these talking points can be used to combat some of the confusion the deniers cause.

DAA

Show me the facts. Show me the evidence. This article is poitical trash..

http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

Are you kidding me? Almost every point is connected to peer-reviewed scientific articles. If you took a few seconds to look at it, you would realized this is connected to hundreds of scientific articles full of proof, and if you wanted to dig in, you’d find that you could easily find all the proof you need.

Captain Obvious

I suppose you’d rather listen to Jesse ventura and rush Limbaugh than scientists.

Lauren

I don’t get the math here, and I’m a ‘math person':

The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per person per day,From Planetsave (share this quote)
That “$100″ per family per month? At 75 cents per person per day, I’m guessing that’s what’s intended, but shouldn’t it SAY SO then? One would assume a yearly cost, the way it’s worded.

http://importantmedia.org/members/zshahan/ Zachary Shahan

i’m not sure what you are referring to — which point is it? follow the links for more details, of course.

Folks:
I am a retired Seismic Surveyor, who has seen the raised beaches on Banks Island, on Victoria Island, on Ellef Ringness Island, on Lougheed Island, on Melville Island, and even on tiny Vessey Hamilton Island. Those raised beaches are mute testimony to much higher sea levels in the past. Must have been an awful _lot_ warmer, then, eh? And we were not around, raising the CO2 levels.
Secondly, here in Lethbridge, Alberta, our city sits above many seams of Coal, the “Rock that Burns”.
Every seam of Coal, and the layers of limestone, sandstone and shale, above and below each Coal seam, have hard evidence of times much warmer than now with CO2 at 1400ppm, and temperatures 10°C higher than today’s Global Temperatures. There are also hard evidences, in those non-coal layers, of temperatures much colder than today’s, with lower sea levels, due to Continental Glaciers.
I therefore look at claims of Anthropogenic Global Warming with deep distrust, just as I look at claims that mankind can change the ongoing _natural_ Climate Change.
It _is_ fun to have enough hubris to imagine that humans can change the effects of the energy input from our Sun. We just do not control even a small percentage of the energy needed to attempt Terraforming on the place where we live.
I regard such attempts as akin to sitting outboard of the limb you are sawing off: but the methods chosen are most likely to cause Global Starvation, by destroying both modern agriculture and modern transportation….

http://importantmedia.org/members/zshahan/ Zachary Shahan

yep, it was warmer in the past. no one denies that.

it is really the RATE of warming today that is the concern.

yep, the sun plays its role, but the fast emission of greenhouse gases is playing a much bigger role in the rapid climate change we are now seeing.

Me thinks haarp and all the other ways they mess with atmosphere 100 nuke exploions can’t b a good thing creating holes on purpose without regard idiots

Captain Obvious

You may be barely able to think, but you cannot use logic. HAARP puts an extremely minor amount of energy into the upper atmosphere, at one location. The nukes were over by the 60’s. Look at all the oil, gas, and coal we’ve burned since then.

David, notice the ‘around’ in front of 95% — it’s just a matter of rounding. why they did it & didn’t keep the higher number, i don’t know, but it is a different way of saying the same thing.

http://Web philip

Heat drives co2, co2 does not drive heat. Even Al Gores movie “An Inconvenient Truth” shows that the rise or fall in co2 levels follow the rise or fall in heat by about 800 years. This is consistent in the ice core studies,silt studies, and tree ring studies; so to believe in man made global warming you have to repeal the laws of Physics. If anyone has a science based answer lets hear it.

Search the IM Network

The content produced by this site is for entertainment purposes only. Opinions and comments published on this site may not be sanctioned by, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sustainable Enterprises Media, Inc., its owners, sponsors, affiliates, or subsidiaries.

Planetsave is part of the Important Media network of blogs working to make the world a better, greener place.